Back in my day, racists were proud to be racists. What the hell is wrong with today's youth?

If you want to be a racist, fine, own up to it and wear your racism proudly - on your head, in the form of a white sheet. If nothing else, it'll save the rest of us the trouble of pointing out that people who make statements like this guy did are, in fact, racist.

Without bothering to look up the statistics or do anything that would involve actual research, I will concede that poor neighborhoods have higher percentages of what many people would consider indications of social ills, including single parenthood.

But let's be honest here: People defending this guy are not just pointing this out because they deeply care about fixing the problems of poverty in Boston. I will even be so bold as to say they don't give a shit about the community the comment is about. They are doing so because it's become the social acceptable way to be a racist: Say something racist and then, when called on it, go all cutesy and go "facts are fact, just sayin'. Who's the racist now?"

How come nobody ever demands the white community do something about the troubling propensity of its young men to commit mass murders? Where were all the cracks about how dangerous the white community is thanks to incidents like the South Boston guy biting off and swallowing somebody's lip in a bar fight?

Like I said, if you're going to be a racist, cut the crap and be honest about it.

There's plenty of demands to do something about white mass murderers, they're everywhere if you just pull your head out of the sand and start seeing everything instead of only things that you want to see. Also, deaths due to gun-toting "victims of racism" outnumber those due to white mass murderers by a factor of 500 at the very least, and that south boston nutjob of yours got a longer sentence for biting a lip off than many get for pumping someone full of lead. And while that cop's comment is indeed racist, it's no worse than comments we all hear from blacks about whites every damn day of the week, so go find a napkin and wipe those white guilt tears of yours.

Perfect response. faRther??? Was he really serious, or so hate-filled that he didn't bother proofreading his rant? Laughing my butt completely off at a fool who becomes the joke. Get an education. In fact, his punishment should be to write FATHER on a post card and hand it to every single child in Roxbury AND he MUST look them in their eyes. Oh my goodness, what a dunce!

While I understand Roxbury is a predominately black community, I'm not sure how race is involved here.

Yes with broad assumptions and insinuations, sure its a bad comment. But if you didn't know Roxbury was a black community would this still be a valid point?

I honestly (and I wait to be flamed on this) this is making a broad assumption about what he said and putting words in his mouth. Sure its assumed that's what he meant but it isn't clearly what he meant it. B

Then to now chastise the fellow officers for liking the post.. again, making a very broad assumption about what those offices were saying and feeling.

I really wonder how far this will go. Again not saying its right or OK but there's a fine line between what was really said and what was insinuated.

which I know you're not, would you want to be pulled over by this "officer"? And there is no fine line, he insinuated that Father's Day is confusing in Roxbury because none of "them" know who their real fathers are. The man should be fired.

Your question is irrelevant. I understand what is insinuated, but it wasn't what was said. Where did he say race? He didn't.

Again you are ASSUMING this is what he meant. You're putting words into people's mouths. You can't do that.

The law will see this as face value.. nothing more, nothing less.

Again not sticking up the guy, but again the court (and if he's fired, he will sue) will only see this as face value and nothing more. Stop trying to insert words or insinuating what he MIGHT have meant because it doesn't hold water.

Cybah, I would say that the increased use of racist dog-whistling since the first Obama campaign, by people who think they're being coy in their bigotry, means that now we must call them out.

That this cop didn't not use an all-caps slur does not mean what he wrote isn't racist. By specifically citing Roxbury-- not Beacon Hill, not Allston, not the North End-- he wanted the people who read the post to make the connection. Then he wanted to be able to claim that he didn't mean anything racist, it's all you nasty racists reading something into it!

So, I'll adjust my first statement: he's a racist, a crap speller, and a coward.

By specifically citing Roxbury-- not Beacon Hill, not Allston, not the North End-- he wanted the people who read the post to make the connection

Are you inside his head? Do you know this for fact? Unless he admits to it, its all speculation.

You don't. It's just ASSUMED this is what he did. Not fact. Courts only care about facts, not assumptions.

So again, stop making broad assumptions about this situation

And btw let me clear the air, I personally could care less about this guy and yeah if this is what he meant to say, sure I hope they can his ass. But what I AM trying to point out is that the assumption that goes along with this and why you can't punish someone for an assumption because this is not what its said.

And ignore it because we make allowances for the fact that this particular poster is quite clearly grappling with numerous intellectual and behavioral challenges when facing discussion in an adult setting.

Don't see why you're trying to be so clever. It is well known locally that the residents of Roxbury are primarily African-American. The cop knows that that's how people perceive it, otherwise the joke doesn't work.

I'm not trying to be clever. I'm trying to point out that at face value it means virtually nothing. Take it at face value and it removes all the connotations about it. Yet people keep trying to throw arguments at me varying from "its a local comment only locals will understand" to dvdoffs way out there dunkin donuts comment.

It just doesn't fly. Sorry. Don't make assumptions about something you aren't 100% sure about, regardless if its 'local lore' or not. Local Lore does not make it factual.

Bottom line: Unless he comes right out and admits it OR someone finds a way to be inside his brain to 100% understand what he meant OR they find other supporting issues (i.e. previous similar encounters or posts).

So stop making extremely broad assumptions that aren't based on fact. Just stop.

Then again, to this crowd (Uhubbers) who often take many other posters comments out of context and insert their own words/thoughts/ideas into it... it's just another bark in the kennel. In short, I don't think people understand the whole point I am trying to make because they do in other places too. (hard to see when you have blinders on)

Regardless, I'm done with this discussion. I've said what I wanted to say and I'm done. Thanks for a lively debate on a typically boring Wednesday morning.

It doesn't matter one bit if I say that I meant something to be a polite and inclusive statement if a sizable number of people are going to find it offensive. If that were the case, I could go around saying whatever I want about whatever demographic I want and be like, no, I didn't mean it offensively. But I can't, and I wouldn't, because words mean things.

And even if we take race out of the equation for the sake of your argument, is it appropriate to make comments that reasonable people find cringeworthy about a whole group of people, and then say that facts back it up? Various demographics have higher-than-average rates of mental illness, substance abuse, and whathaveyou, but on what planet is it OK to call people drunkards, junkies, deadbeats, or anything of the sort? You realize there's a huge difference, right, between saying that a particular ZIP code has more single-mother families than average, versus HURR HURR THEM PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHO THEIR DADS ARE. One is a fact. One is disrespectful and is showing that the speaker views a group of people as a "them." Once someone views someone as "the other," it's really easy to not treat that person the way you'd want your family members treated.

If you don't know the difference between these two kinds of statements, you shouldn't be working with the public either. The people of this city, especially the people of color, have the right to have a police force in which there's been at least some effort to hold officers to a standard of respecting all people.

Ask anyone who has spent ten minutes around some of the old Dunkie's in this town and you know exactly what he meant. Take it from someone who lived in the Bunker Hill projects during busing, I know exactly what he meant. I've been hearing that same line about Roxbury since I was 5 years old.

I'm well aware that its 'known' but again it was not said. Big difference.. you cannot tack on some 'assumption' because you heard it since you were five at an old school dunkin donuts. It just doesn't work that way. You need facts.

Let me regurgitate for you what I said above so my point drives home yet again

"And btw let me clear the air, I personally could care less about this guy and yeah if this is what he meant to say, sure I hope they can his ass. But what I AM trying to point out is that the assumption that goes along with this and why you can't punish someone for an assumption because this is not what its said."

His employer is not taking him to court, and does not need to meet evidentiary standards. If this guy wants to fight it through his union or with a labor lawyer, fine, but that's not what's happening right now and his employer does not have to meet those standards at this time.

That doesn't matter right now. And, frankly, it will probably never get to court but will be resolved in union mediation one way or another, so it may never need to meet civil case standards. The employer is not obliged to go there right now.

But should it hit that point, well, other dog whistle cases have gone against the accused, so "that's not what I meant" when that is clearly what he meant might not fly in court either.

but ole Dunkie's is local street slang for cops. And the fact is that the cop made a racist comment on a public website and any Judge who has lived here longer than ten minutes will know what he meant. Certainly anyone from Roxbury will know what he meant. Do you spend a lot of time in Grove Hall?

Who cares what people in Seattle would think, we don't live in Seattle. I could say "people in Roxbury love friend chicken and watermelon" and someone who lives in China may not be able to interpret my remarks. That doesn't make them right.

Because as I keep repeating.. I don't read between the lines and take people at face value.

You don't know people... seriously you don't. Maybe its time to stop making broad assumptions about people you don't know anything about just because they look/act/talk a certain way.

Its the same argument with people with expensive cell phones who use EBT. Everyone hates it, everyone makes comments about it, but yet no one bothers to fully understand WHY that is. Because maybe if you understood it, and didn't make broad assumptions about people you might have a better understanding of people.

Back to your point and the noose. Same thing.. unless you go and ASK them why they are carrying it around, you wouldn;t know. You'd just be left making your own assumptions about something you know little about.

but your attempt to turn your position into one of "I simply don't discriminate and you do" doesn't work.

you are trying to defend a racist and racist actions with logic that becomes more convoluted at every iteration, it's that simple. first it was "the courts won't see it that way," and then it was "you're not inside his head," and now it's something about not being judgmental.

Had you stopped at simply saying "hey, this sucked and was bad but unfortunately from a purely legal standpoint, there are issues calling this explicitly racist," you wouldn't look so bad, but man, your hole is deep at this point.

And I took the comment at face value. No race was mentioned in the text of what he wrote. Only a city. And that connotation is what made it racial. But at face value, not so much. I took at as face value and didn't read between the lines

Text on a screen.. absolutely I take it with a grain of salt because words can be interpreted and read many different ways.

In person, not so much (as body language and other factors come into play)

btw you're also talking to the sarcasm KING. I know ALL about metaphors and sarcasm. And I know how they can be miss interpreted online as text on a screen. Hence why I asked in what context you are asking AND why.. very often on Uhub I can spend a fair amount of time writing a posts and crafting my words carefully so they don't interpreted the wrong way.

"Ask anyone who has spent ten minutes around some of the old Dunkie's in this town . . .Take it from someone who lived in the Bunker Hill projects during busing . . ."

Right here is the biggest issue people have with a lot of townies (and former townies) in this city--it ain't the '70s anymore! I love how people still talk about Roxbury (or Southie or JP or Mission Hill or any other neighborhood) like it was "back then." Back then the crime rate was through the roof; back then if you weren't a certain shade of skin tone you wouldn't be caught on one side of Washington Street or the other, even at high noon.

Sorry, times changes; people change; neighborhoods gentrify. People don't like Southie still being painted as racist Bulger Town; it's time to move on with Roxbury as well.

Dvdoff was simply speaking the truth, and explaining why the denialists are wrong. He and I and others have both heard this kind of "joke" since the 70s and before. It never stopped. The racists are still out there. Just because you moved into Boston doesn't mean that the racists moved out. I will say that the racial climate in my opinion is better than it was in the 70s.
But to deny that it still exists doesn't help anything.

"Again not sticking up the guy"
Of course you are, at least be honest and admit it. Its not assuming if there is no other plausible answer. Why did the police officer single out Roxbury, answer that. At least you are illustrating how bigots are not very intelligent.

A: you absolutely seem to be "sticking up for him," why not just own that?

B: if "that's not what he meant" or "that's not what he said," then what did he say? How about you give us your interpretation, if all of the rest of society is "putting words into his mouth"? If it didn't mean what it so obviously meant, then please tell us, what did it mean?

I honestly don't get how you're trying to stay on both sides of this one. You understand what he insinuated and think that's wrong, but think that was he said was ok anyway.

Cybah, despite your debating team tactics, this was clearly a racist statement, was meant to be racist, and was interpreted as racist by everyone who read it, including those who liked it, and those who didn't.
My roots are in Southie, I live in Dorchester and I'm white. I've heard this kind of "joke" for my entire life, of course among whites, when no black people are present. Unfortunately the T has a long sordid history of racism in hiring, promotion, and interaction among employees, so this kind of stuff doesn't surprise.

He's simply stating an inconvenient truth about a vast majority of Roxbury's households, nothing racist about it. Should I be fired for stating that the sky is blue to a group of people who happen to really hate that color? They might not like it, but it is what it is. He should definitely be fired if his statement applied to the entire black population, but as far as Roxbury goes his statement is absolutely correct, with plenty of data to back it up.

Its a simple fact that black kids are far more likely to have single parent, mother headed, homes than other races. Are black leaders upset at anyone for pointing out the truth and their failures at getting black men to stay with the mothers of their children?

You are noting statistics that demonstrate the results of racism and underclass status, and using them to justify further negative treatment of people in the underclass experiencing racism.

That's a classic intellectual fallacy, in that it confuses the results of poverty and racism with justification for completely ineffectual judgmental nonsense. The statistics exist, yes, and expert sociological and demographic judgement knows that they demonstrate the outcomes of negative judgments and difficult lives.

Ignorant people use those statistics to further stigmatize those same people to make themselves feel big.

I love Uhubbers who only read what they want to read. If you read all the posts, you'd understand me.

I won't say it again. Please re-read what I wrote.

And please, spare me the "oh you must be a racist if you don't agree with the pack" even if there's another angle attitude. Seriously, stop this crap.

Everyone all day has been trying to race bait me on this thread. I smell that game a mile away and I don't play that game.

I will say this again to make it clear once again.

I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT HE SAID AND I HOPE HIS ASS GETS FIRED.

How much more do I have to say that to prove that I am merely debating a point that I may or may not agree with. Its called playing the devils advocate, it starts debate and helps spur lively conversation. That's all I am doing folks... nothing more, nothing less.

How can you agree or disagree with what he said when you don't understand what he said because in order to understand what he said you have to make an assumption about what he said and all assumptions are bad because you take people at face value and....

Facebook is not the place to have the discussion in a joking context, however there is a trend of babies in Roxbury being born into single parent households that leads to a number of other issues. No one is talking about this challenge that negatively impacts the community, it's too bad that public figures like Tito Jackson aren't taking the opportunity to discuss this in a serious manner.

It would be inappropriate for a person in public service to use a racist joke as a jumping off point for a serious discussion of anything. It would validate the bigotry and undermine any valid point, if there actually is one, to be made.

It takes at least $60k a year to survive around here, and well over $100k a year to be able to support a child. Are you telling me all those teenage single mothers in Roxbury are raking in $100k a year and are perfectly happy raising that child (or children, in most cases) on their own?

Further left than your average MassHole, I read this site daily for one reason. He is the ONLY consistent local site that post LOCAL news that typically isn't publish on the other major sites. I think thats why a lot of people jump on UHub when local issues/ incidents happen.

I may not agree with everything he says, but he deserves credit for his unwavering commitment to posting local news.

I posted this in a few places online yesterday: "Brazil did nazi this coming" in reference to the World Cup game in which Germany scored 5 goals in under 20 minutes to start the game.

Not particularly too deep or original. It relies on the listener to make the connection between Germany and Nazis, a connection that modern Germany has adequately distanced itself from. It's an ethnic joke, yet I feel no fear of the German community contacting my boss to get me fired. Look, some of my best friends are Germans, alright?

Jokes can be offensive. Part of their use in social commentary is to highlight our problems and our weaknesses. However, the context is key. A KKK member making black jokes is creating an out group solely for denigration. He means to enact the intent of his jokes. Whereas, when Jamie Kennedy does his set on using a "black-ccent" to scare off a would-be burglar outside his house, nobody boycotts his stage shows.

Now, is this cop more the KKK or more the Jamie Kennedy? Where does he fall on the spectrum of intending to foul the community or intending to crack a smile? If you say it doesn't matter, then you're ignoring the utility of comedy to expose the very problem you think the joke is causing.

Is how I see this. For one, I believe there's a difference. Second, I think intent is a huge factor here. Is he making a negative blanket statement with the intent to cause harm or malice, or is he repeating a groaner of a joke based on a commonly held stereotype to elicit a chuckle? Growing up, I told the exact same joke. Except the neighborhood was a trailer park on the edge of town, filled with white people who loved country music.

This seems like a pretty benign joke that is being blown wildly out of proportion. The cop should not have made it in a public forum. He's a public servant under constant scrutiny, that's part of the job. But at the same time, grow a pair people. I'm quite sure everyone has made a stereotypical joke at one time or another, including the residents of Roxbury. I'd even wager everyone has made what they thought was a funny joke to have it blow up in their face.

That seems to be the message. Times and rules change, so edgy becomes unacceptable. Political correctness keeps expanding. Still OK to demean white males, however. Germans too, apparently. At least one of the German players didn't look Aryan, and many Germans moved to southern Brazil (to spawn supermodels).